Folks,
This Friday (November 9th, 2012) I'll be presenting the I-D entitled
"Virtual Private Network (VPN) traffic leakages in dual-stack
hosts/networks" (draft-gont-opsec-vpn-leakages-00) at the opsec wg meeting.
FWIW, I did a short presentation of this I-D ad the ipsecme g meeting
yesterday (as
Tero Kivinen wrote:
TK> The another question is whether this document needs to be WG
TK> document or not. As it seems to be that we are updating the
TK> RFC5996 and obsoleting stuff from it, there seemed to be some
TK> people who felt that this should be WG document. Send your
I mean next IETF, maybe we can put IPsec in meetecho?
Cheers,
Will
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:21 AM
To: Will Liu (Shucheng)
Cc: IPsecme WG
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Will it be a good idea if we join in meetecho?
On
My draft draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02.txt defines new way to
send any type of raw public keys inside IKEv2. RFC5996 only allows
sending RSA raw public keys. This means after this we would have two
ways to do send RSA raw public keys, old RFC5996 and new format define
din my draft.
In yeste
David McGrew (mcgrew) wrote:
DM> My thinking was that it makes sense for the document to mention
DM> the algorithm options that had been defined at the time of
DM> writing, so the reader isn't left wondering. There are other
Surely we have lots of vanity crypto which has code points
On Nov 5, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Too late now that our meeting's over.
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Will Liu (Shucheng) wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I see that several WGs are in here. http://ietf85.conf.meetecho.com/
>> Do you think it would be a good idea that we also join
